heavy forged hand tools from china - usitc · in those reviews, the commission determined that...

U.S. International Trade CommissionPublication 4250 August 2011

Washington, DC 20436

Heavy Forged Hand Tools From ChinaInvestigation Nos. 731-TA-457-A-D (Third Review)

U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman

Charlotte R. Lane Daniel R. Pearson Shara L. Aranoff Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Christopher Cassise, Senior Investigator Dennis Fravel, Industry Analyst

David Fishberg, Attorney

Christopher Cassise, Acting Supervisory Investigator

U.S. International Trade CommissionWashington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4250 August 2011

Heavy Forged Hand Tools From ChinaInvestigation Nos. 731-TA-457-A-D (Third Review)

CONTENTS

Page

Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1The original investigation and subsequent five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3Commerce’s final results of its expedited third five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

The subject product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7Domestic like products and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7Description and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10U.S. producers’ trade and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Appendix

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1B. Statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Note.--Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be publishedand therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

i

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-457-A-D (Third Review)

HEAVY FORGED HAND TOOLS FROM CHINA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. ' 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools

from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to industries in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on January 3, 2011 (76 F.R. 168) and determined on

April 8, 2011 that it would conduct expedited reviews (76 F.R. 31631, June 1, 2011).

1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission=s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR ' 207.2(f)).

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the TariffAct of 1930, as amended (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged handtools from China is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to industries in theUnited States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

The U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determined that industries in theUnited States were materially injured by reason of less than fair value (“LTFV”) imports of heavy forgedhand tools (“hand tools”) from China in January 1991,1 and Commerce issued antidumping duty orders onthe subject merchandise on February 19, 1991.2 The Commission found four separate like products: (1)picks and mattocks, with or without handles (“picks and mattocks”); (2) hammers and sledges, with headsweighing two pounds or more (“hammers and sledges”); (3) bar tools, track tools and wedges (“bars andwedges”); and (4) axes, adzes and hewing tools, other than machetes, with or without handles (“axes andadzes”).

On October 1, 1999, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews of the antidumping dutyorders on heavy forged hand tools from China. The Commission found the domestic interested partygroup response to be adequate for picks and mattocks, hammers and sledges, and bars and wedges, butinadequate with respect to axes and adzes. The Commission also determined that the respondentinterested party group responses were adequate with respect to all heavy forged hand tools. Pursuant to19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5), the Commission decided to conduct full reviews of these orders. In June 2000,the Commission determined that revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation orrecurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3 Subsequently, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty orders, effective February 4,2000, for picks and mattocks and axes and adzes,4 and effective June 2, 2000, for hammers and sledgesand bars and wedges.

The Commission instituted the second reviews of the orders at issue on July 1, 2005. It found thedomestic interested party group responses to the notice of institution to be adequate with respect to allfour domestic like products and the respondent interested party group responses to be inadequate. In theabsence of adequate respondent interested party group responses or other circumstances warranting a fullreview, the Commission decided to conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. In those reviews, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavyforged hand tools from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury toindustries in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.5

1 Heavy Forged Handtools from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITC Pub. 2357, (Feb. 1991) at 3(“Original Determination”). All citations are to the published version of the determination unless otherwise noted. 2 56 Fed. Reg. 6622 (Feb. 19, 1991). 3 Heavy Forged Handtools from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-457 (A-D) (First Review), USITC Pub. 3322, (July2000) at 3 (“First Five-Year Review Determination”). All citations are to the published version of the determinationunless otherwise noted. 4 65 Fed. Reg. 5497 (Feb. 4, 2000). 5 Heavy Forged Handtools from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-457 (A-D) (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3836 (Jan.2006), at 3 (“Second Five-Year Review Determination”). All citations are to the published version of thedetermination unless otherwise noted.

3

The Commission instituted these third reviews of the orders at issue on January 3, 2011.6 OnApril 4, 2011, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group responses to its noticeof institution were adequate, but that the respondent interested party group responses were inadequate.7 In the absence of adequate respondent interested party group responses, or other factors warranting fullreviews, the Commission determined to conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of theAct.8 9 Domestic interested parties Ames True Temper (“Ames”) and Council Tool Co., Inc. (“Council”),both domestic producers of all four separate like products (axes and adzes, bars and wedges, hammers andsledges, and picks and mattocks), responded to the Commission’s notice of institution and filed commentsin these reviews. Fiskars Brands Inc., (“Fiskars”), a U.S. importer of subject axes and adzes during theperiod of review, submitted a response to the Commission’s notice of institution. On February 28, 2011,however, Fiskars submitted a letter indicating that it no longer intended to participate in these reviews andrequested that its response be withdrawn.10 No other respondent interested party has provided anyinformation or argument to the Commission in these reviews.

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c), the Commission defines the “domestic likeproduct” and the “industry.”11 The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, orin the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigationunder this subtitle.”12 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like productdefinition from the original determination and any previous reviews, and consider whether the recordindicates any reason to revisit that definition.13

In these five-year reviews, Commerce has defined the scope of the antidumping duty orders asfollows:

The products covered by these orders are hand tools (“HFHTs”) comprising thefollowing classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) hammers and sledges withheads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds); (2) bars over 18 inches in length, track tools,and wedges; (3) picks and mattocks; and (4) axes, adzes, and similar hewingtools. HFHTs include heads for drilling, hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks,

6 76 Fed. Reg. 168 (Jan. 3, 2011). 7 See Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) at Appendix B. 8 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3). 9 See CR at Appendix B. 10 CR/PR at I-1, n.4. Fiskars reported that ***. Id. 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 apply to the entire subtitle containing theantidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677. 12 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. UnitedStates, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct.Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91(1979). 13 See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan and the UnitedKingdom, Inv. No. 701-TA-380-382 and 731-TA-797-804 (Review), USITC Pub. 3788 (July 2005) at 6; CrawfishTail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 (July 2003) at 4; Steel ConcreteReinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 (Feb. 2003) at 4.

4

and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may not befinished, or which may or may not be imported with handles; assorted barproducts and track tools including wrecking bars, digging bars, and tampers;and steel woodsplitting wedges. HFHTs are manufactured through a hot forgeoperation in which steel is sheared to required length, heated to forgingtemperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment using dies specificto the desired product shape and size. Depending on the product, finishingoperations may include shot blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and theinsertion of handles for handled product. HFHTs are currently provided forunder the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”)subheadings 8201.30.00, 8201.40.60, 8205.20.60, and 8205.59.30. Specificallyexcluded from these reviews are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kilograms(3.33 pounds) in weight and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in lengthand under.14

Heavy hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) have heads that are heavierthan claw-type (carpenters’) hammers or ball peen type (machinists’) hammers. Sledge hammers areheavy hammers used for driving stakes, wedges or other objects. Woodsplitting mauls resemble sledgehammers except that they have one axe-like edge. Primarily, they are intended to split wood without theuse of wedges, but the blunt end may be used for striking stakes, wedges or other objects as one wouldwith a sledge hammer. Hammers and sledges, including mauls, within the scope of the antidumping dutyorder typically have handles made of wood or fiberglass.15

The principal product within the bars and wedges category is the crowbar. This tool typically hasa gooseneck-like shape to the bar at the claw end for pulling nails and spikes, and a chisel blade at theother end of the bar for prying. Other bars, such as wrecking bars, may be flattened. Variousconfigurations of curves allow for differing degrees of leverage in prying operations. Bars and wedgesencompass digging bars and tampers. Bars are used for demolition, scraping, lifting, or prying apart floortile, wood paneling, nailed wood items, wood molding, and/or removing nails and spikes from wood.

14 76 Fed. Reg. at 24856 (May 3, 2011). Since the original investigations, Commerce has issued ten scoperulings regarding the merchandise covered by these orders: (1) On August 16, 1993, the Commerce found the “MaxMulti-Purpose Axe,” imported by the Forrest Tool Co., to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (2) on March8, 2001, Commerce found “18–inch” and “24– inch” pry bars, produced without dies, imported by OlympiaIndustrial, Inc. and SMC Pacific Tools, Inc., to be within the scope of the bars/wedges order; (3) on March 8, 2001, Commerce found the “Pulaski” tool, produced without dies by TMC, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order;(4) on March 8, 2001, Commerce found the “skinning axe,” imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be within the scopeof the axes/adzes order; (5) on December 9, 2004, Commerce found the “Scrapek MUTT,” imported by OlympiaIndustrial, Inc., under HTS 8205.59.5510, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (6) on May 23, 2005, Commerce found 8 inch by 8 inch and 10 inch by 10 inch cast tampers, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. to beoutside the scope of the orders; (7) on October 14, 2005, Commerce found the “Mean Green Splitting Machine”imported by Avalanche Industries to be within the scope of the bars/wedges order; (8) on February 20, 2008,Commerce found that “stamped machetes, gator machetes, and brush axes” imported by Fiskars are not within thescope of the orders; (9) on December 1, 2008, Commerce found that New Buffalo Corp.’s “4 Ton Electric LogSplitter” was not within the scope of the orders; and (10) on February 25, 2011, Commerce found that “stubby bar”imported by Olympia Tools was not within the scope of the orders. Id.; 73 Fed Reg. 9293 (Feb. 20, 2008);73 FedReg. 72771, (Dec. 1, 2008); 76 Fed Reg. 10558, (Feb. 25, 2011). 15 CR at I-9, PR at I-8.

5

Digging bars are used to break up hardened soil and tampers are used to compact loose soil or asphalt. Wedges are used in splitting wood.16

Picks and mattocks are produced in a number of styles and sizes, and differ principally in theweight of the head, the angle and size of the prongs, and the shape of the pick points. Picks generally areused for digging in relatively hard soil and striking the soil with the point of the pick head, whereas themattock has one side of the head being a broad blade and is used in relatively soft soil. Both mattocksand picks are produced with either wood or fiberglass handles.17

Axes and adzes are hewing tools. Axes generally are grouped into two categories: large axes andspecial-purpose axes. Large axes are intended primarily for chopping wood. They are manufactured witheither two cutting edges (double-bit) or a single cutting edge (single-bit). The single-bit axe has on theopposite side of the axe head a hammer face that can be used for pounding. Special-purpose axes aredesigned to function as two tools. For example, the mattock axe is a single-bit axe with an adze-shapedgrubbing blade on the back and is designed for digging, prying or chopping. Adzes are used in shapingwood, and may have either a flat or curved blade at a right angle to the handle.18

In the original investigation, the Commission determined that there were four like products: (1)hammers and sledges, with heads weighing two pounds or more, with or without handles (striking tools);(2) all bar tools, track tools and wedges (bar tools); (3) picks and mattocks, with or without handles(digging tools); and (4) axes, adzes and hewing tools, other than machetes, with or without handles(hewing tools).19 The Commission found the same four like products in its first and second five-yearreviews.20

In these third five-year reviews, there is no new information on the record that suggests areexamination of the Commission’s definition of domestic like product is warranted, and no party hasargued for different domestic like product definitions than in the original investigation and priorreviews.21 For the reasons stated in the original determination and the first and second five-year reviews,we again define the domestic like products as: (1) axes, adzes and hewing tools, other than machetes,with or without handles; (2) bar tools, track tools and wedges; (3) hammers and sledges, with headsweighing two pounds or more, with or without handles; and (4) picks and mattocks, with or withouthandles, coextensive with Commerce’s scope.

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a wholeof a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like productconstitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”22

16 CR at I-9, PR at I-8. 17 CR at I-10, PR at I-9. 18 CR at I-8, PR at I-8. 19 Original Determination at 15. 20 First Five-Year Review Determination at 6; Second Five-Year Review Determination at 7. 21 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 25; Council’s Response to Notice of Institution at 9. 22 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been toinclude in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captivelyconsumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market, provided that adequate production-related activity is conductedin the United States. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’l Trade1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

6

In the original investigation and the first two reviews, the Commission found four domesticindustries, consistent with the four domestic like products.23 These industries consisted of the following: (1) domestic producers of hammers and sledges, with heads weighing two pounds or more, with orwithout handles (striking tools); (2) domestic producers of all bar tools, track tools and wedges (bartools); (3) domestic producers of picks and mattocks, with or without handles (digging tools); and (4)domestic producers of axes, adzes and hewing tools, other than machetes, with or without handles(hewing tools).

In their responses to the notice of institution, Ames and Council list themselves and WarwoodTool Co. as the domestic producers of hand tools.24 Both Ames and Council indicated that to the best oftheir knowledge no domestic producer is a related party under the statute.25

The record here contains no information that would warrant a reconsideration of any of the priordomestic industry definitions. We therefore define the domestic industries in these reviews as consistentwith the definitions in the first and second five-year reviews and the original determination: (1) domesticproducers of hammers and sledges, with heads weighing two pounds or more, with or without handles(striking tools); (2) domestic producers of all bar tools, track tools and wedges (bar tools); (3) domesticproducers of picks and mattocks, with or without handles (digging tools); and (4) domestic producers ofaxes, adzes and hewing tools, other than machetes, with or without handles (hewing tools).

III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IFTHE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ARE REVOKED

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke anantidumping duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or subsidization is likely tocontinue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping dutyorder “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonablyforeseeable time.”26 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in acounter-factual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of animportant change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination ofits restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”27 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective innature.28 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the sunset review

23 Original Determination at 19; First Five-Year Review Determination at 7; Second Five-Year ReviewDetermination at 8-9. In the original investigation, the Commission excluded from the domestic industriescompanies that did no more than assemble imported heads with handles purchased from a domestic manufacturer. The Commission also excluded one domestic producer, Madison Mill, from the domestic industries under the relatedparties provision. In the first reviews, one of the domestic producers, ***, imported axes from China in 1999, andwas therefore a related party. The Commission determined that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude*** from the axes and adzes domestic industry. First Five-Year Review Determination at 7 at 8. In the secondexpedited review, the Commission did not exclude any company as a related party. Second Five-Year ReviewDetermination at 8-9. 24 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 22-23; Council’s Response to Notice of Institution at 6-7. 25 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 22-23; Council’s Response to Notice of Institution at 6-7. 26 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). 27 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury standardapplies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury,or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were nevercompleted.” SAA at 883. 28 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

(continued...)

7

provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.29

30 31

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or terminationmay not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”32 According tothe SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”33

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an originalantidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute providesthat the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subjectmerchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”34 Itdirects the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement inthe state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether theindustry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated,and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).35

28 (...continued)indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressedshipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market inmaking its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” SAA at 884. 29 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ meansprobable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’sopinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, 26 CIT 1059 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood ofcontinuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002) (“‘likely’ istantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”). 30 For a complete statement of Chairman Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views ofVice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy SteelStandard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and731-TA-707 to 710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005). 31 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court ofInternational Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and allsubsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitaddresses this issue. 32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). 33 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility ordifferentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domesticproducts, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id. 34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). 35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings by Commerce with respect to the ordersunder review. The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission isrequired to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination. 19U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

8

No respondent interested parties participated in these expedited reviews. The record, therefore,contains limited new information with respect to the hand tools industries in China, as well as limitedinformation on the hand tools market during the period of review. Accordingly, in reaching ourdetermination, we rely as appropriate on the facts available from the original investigation and priorreviews and the limited new information on the record in these reviews.36 37

B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directsthe Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle andconditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”38

1. The Original Investigation and the Prior Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission did not make explicit findings regarding conditionsof competition for each of the domestic industries.

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found several conditions of competition for each ofthe domestic industries, as follows. The production of hand tools was labor intensive, rather than capitalintensive, and there were no significant differences reported in the manufacturing process betweenimported and domestically produced products. There was a moderate to high degree of substitutionbetween the domestic products and subject imports. Demand had been relatively flat since the time of theoriginal investigations and there had been a shift in demand from the industrial sector to large retailaccounts as well as to the do-it-yourself market. Price was an important factor in purchasing decisions,particularly with the large retail accounts. Since the time of the original investigations, there had been alarge increase in nonsubject imports, which accounted for a large percentage of total imports at the timeof the first reviews.39

36 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching adetermination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or other personwithholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time, form, or mannerrequested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 782(i) are applicable only toCommerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’lTrade 2001) (“[T]he ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verificationprocedures for the evidence before it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of aCommission investigation.”). 37 Chairman Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-yearreviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence asa whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied bythe participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and doesnot automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of thelevel of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factorsand may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makesdeterminations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domesticindustry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869. 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 39 First Five-Year Review Determination at 11. Based on the record data, the Commission found that theimportant conditions of competition were similar for each of the industries, as were the likely effects of revocation ofthe orders.

9

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission stated that the limited record did not indicatethat there had been any significant changes in the conditions of competition since the time of the firstfive-year reviews.40 The Commission noted that there had been no significant changes in supply anddemand conditions or in the business cycle for hand tools since 1991.41 The Commission also noted thatthere was no indication from the record that the production of any of the hand tools is no longer laborintensive, nor was there any indication that the degree of substitution between the domestic products andsubject imports is no longer moderate to high.42 The Commission stated that Chinese producersreportedly continued to compete on price.43 The record also indicated that there had been an increase insales at internet retail sites.44 Finally, the Commission noted that the domestic industries appeared to haveconsolidated since the first reviews, declining from five major domestic producers to three majordomestic producers of each of the domestic like products.45

2. The Current Reviews

In these reviews, we find the following conditions of competition relevant to our analysis.The limited record of these expedited reviews indicates that the conditions of competition relied

upon by the Commission in making its determinations in the second five-year reviews generallycontinued in the current period. The record indicates that the high degree of substitutability betweensubject imports and the domestic like products, the importance of price in the U.S. hand tools market, andoverlapping channels of distribution continue to exist in the market.46

Since the last reviews, Ames notes that the economic downturn has had a significant impact onU.S. manufacturing industries, including the hand tools industries. It states that hand tools demand isheavily dependent on construction activity, both residential and non-residential, which has been adverselyaffected by the recent recession.47 Ames asserts that demand for hand tools has declined, resulting inreduced capacity utilization and downward pressure on U.S. prices.48

Ames listed 87 Chinese producers of subject merchandise49 and two known importers of subjectmerchandise from China.50 Council listed eight Chinese firms that it believes are major exporters ofsubject merchandise to the United States,51 and nine importers of subject merchandise from China.52

During the original investigations and the first reviews, import data were collected fromCommission questionnaires. Such data were unavailable in the expedited second reviews and the currentreviews; the only data available for 2010 are based on official Commerce import statistics. As a result,our volume data in the original investigations were based on import shipment data reported in

40 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 12. 41 Id. 42 Id. 43 Id. 44 Id. 45 Id. at 14-15. 46 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 12-13. 47 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 14-15. 48 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 15. Ames asserts that there are ***. Ames’ Response to Notice ofInstitution at 15-16. Ames states that while *** Id. at 16. 49 CR at I-19, PR at I-16. Ames was unable to list which producers produced which categories of hand tools. 50 CR at I-15, PR at I-12. 51 CR at I-19, PR at I-16. 52 CR at I-15, PR at I-12.

10

Commission questionnaires, whereas our volume data in these third reviews are based on import datafrom official Commerce import statistics. Moreover, three of the four categories of HTS numbers,corresponding to three out of the four hand tool products subject to the orders, are “basket” categorieswith nonsubject items included in the category (only “hammers and sledges” is not a basket category). We recognize that any comparison of the data should be made with caution.53

The U.S. hand tools market is supplied by domestic producers,54 subject imports, and nonsubjectimports. In 2010, the domestic industries’ shares of apparent U.S. consumption for each like productcategory were *** percent for axes and adzes, *** percent for bars and wedges, *** percent for hammersand sledges, and *** percent for picks and mattocks.55 The market shares held by subject imports fromChina were *** percent for axes and adzes, *** percent for bars and wedges, *** percent for hammersand sledges, and *** percent for picks and mattocks.56 The market shares held by nonsubject importswere *** percent for axes and adzes, *** percent for bars and wedges, *** percent for hammers andsledges, and *** percent for picks and mattocks.57

We find that these conditions of competition in the hand tools market provide us with areasonable basis on which to assess the likely effects of revocation of the orders.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty orderswere revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would besignificant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.58 Indoing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumeratedfactors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in theexporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories;(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than theUnited States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country,which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce otherproducts.59

53 CR/PR at Appendix C; CR at I-15, PR at I-12. 54 Ames estimated that in 2010 it accounted for *** percent of U.S. production of axes and adzes, *** percent ofU.S. production of bars and wedges, *** percent of U.S. production of hammers and sledges, and *** percent ofU.S. production of picks and mattocks. CR at I-13; PR at I-11. Council estimated that it accounted forapproximately *** percent of U.S. production of all four domestic like products. CR at I-13, PR at. I-11. In thesecond five-year reviews, data on domestic producers were available only for Ames, which accounted for ***percent of domestic production of hammers and sledges, *** percent of the production of bars and wedges, ***percent of the production of picks and mattocks, and *** percent of the production of axes and adzes. In the firstfive-year reviews, data were available for 100 percent of domestic production of hammers and sledges, *** percentof the production of bars and wedges, 100 percent of the production of picks and mattocks, and 100 percent of theproduction of axes and adzes. In the original investigation, data were available for 99.9 percent of domesticproduction of hammers and sledges, 99.9 percent of the production of bars and wedges, *** percent of theproduction of picks and mattocks, and 99.9 percent of the production of axes and adzes. CR/PR at Appendix C. 55 CR/PR at Table I-5. 56 CR/PR at Table I-5. 57 CR/PR at Table I-5. 58 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). 59 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

11

1. The Original Determinations

The Commission found that the market share of subject imports corresponding to each of the fourlike products had increased significantly. Between 1987 and 1989, subject imports’ share of totaldomestic consumption of hammers and sledges rose from *** percent to *** percent, as the actualvolume of subject imports rose by *** percent, from *** units in 1987 to *** in 1989. Subject imports’share of total domestic consumption of bars and wedges by volume rose from *** percent in 1987 to ***percent in 1989, with actual imports rising by *** percent, from *** units in 1987 to *** units in 1989. Subject imports’ share of total domestic consumption of picks and mattocks rose from *** percent in1987 to *** percent in 1989, as the actual volume of imports rose by *** percent, rising from *** units in1987 to *** units in 1989. For axes and adzes, subject imports’ share of total domestic consumption rosefrom *** percent in 1987 to *** percent in 1989; the volume of subject axe and adze imports rose from*** units in 1987 to *** units in 1989, or by *** percent.60

2. The Prior Reviews

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that the volume of subject imports wouldlikely be significant if the orders were revoked. The limited information available indicated that theChinese industries remained very large. In addition, the United States was the most important exportmarket for the Chinese products.61

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission found that the volume of subject imports fromChina likely would be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the orders were revoked “in lightof the large and growing capacity of Chinese producers and the continued and rising presence of subjectimports in the market despite the orders, the importance of the U.S. market and the aggressive pursuit ofmarket share by Chinese producers and exporters seeking to evade duties.”62


In these third five-year reviews, we find that the volume of subject imports would likely besignificant if the orders were revoked. Even with the orders in place, Chinese producers continue tosupply the United States with large volumes of subject merchandise.63 64 The absolute volumes of subjectimports for two of the four products, bars and wedges and hammers and sledges, were greater in 2010than the volumes for those products that were found to be injurious during the original investigations.65 Shipments of subject imports of bars and wedges were *** units in 1989, and subject imports were 2.0

60 Original Determination at 25-30. 61 First Five-Year Review Determination at 13-14. 62 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 11-13. 63 As indicated above, we view the available import data with caution because three of the subject productcategories are covered by basket categories. 64 According to the Global Trade Atlas data, which we also view with caution because they are over-inclusive,substantial volumes of all categories of heavy forged hand tools from China are being exported to the United States. CR/PR at Tables I-6-I-9. 65 CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Tables I-16 and I-17. As discussed earlier, our volume data in theoriginal investigations were based on import shipment data reported in Commission questionnaires, whereas ourvolume data in these third reviews were based on import data from official Commerce import statistics. We alsorecognize that the official Commerce import data are over-inclusive for all categories except hammers and sledges. We note that the record of the second reviews did not contain subject import data by quantity.

12

million unit in 2010.66 Shipments of subject imports of hammers and sledges were *** units in 1989, andsubject imports were 695,000 in 2010.67

Despite an initial decline in subject import volumes for all four products immediately after theorders were put in place, subject import volumes have increased for all four products since the firstreviews, even with the orders in place.68 Subject imports, except for bars and wedges, have also increasedtheir market shares since the first reviews.69 Thus, it is evident that subject imports have once againincreased their presence in the U.S. market and Chinese exporters have been able to increase their exportsto the United States even with the antidumping duty orders in place.

Because of the lack of participation by Chinese producers and importers of subject merchandise,the Commission has limited information on the Chinese industries producing hand tools in these reviews.There is no information indicating that the total number of producers in China or that Chinese capacity toproduce hand tools has decreased since the last reviews. Domestic producer Ames identified 87 firms thatit believes produced heavy forged hand tools in China since 2004, and domestic producer Councilreported eight firms that it believes are major exporters of hand tools from China since 2004.70

The record of these reviews also indicates that the Chinese industries producing hand toolsremain export-oriented. In the second reviews, the Commission noted that the United States was the mostimportant export market for China.71 The United States remains the most important export market foreach product category in these current reviews except for axes and adzes. For hammers and sledges, 17.1percent of China’s exports went to the United States in 2010; for bars and wedges, 29.9 percent; for picksand mattocks, 18.7 percent; and for axes and adzes, 4.0 percent.72 In light of the size of the Chineseindustries and the importance of the U.S. market for Chinese producers even with the orders in place, it islikely that, upon revocation of the orders, Chinese producers and exporters would ship even greatervolumes to the United States.73

Based on subject imports’ volume and market share, the subject imports’ increasing presence inthe U.S. market even with the orders in place, the reported size of the industries and available capacity in

66 CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Table I-17. Shipments of subject imports of picks and mattocks were*** units in 1989, and subject imports were 204,000 units in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Table I-18. Shipments of subject imports of axes and adzes were *** units in 1989, and subject imports were 184,000 unitsin 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Table I-18. 67 CR/PR at Table I-16. 68 CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Tables I-16 and I-17. Shipments of subject imports of bars and wedgeswere *** units in 1999, and subject imports were 2.0 million units in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C atTable I-17. Shipments of subject imports of hammers and sledges were *** units in 1999, and subject imports were695,000 in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Table I-16. Shipments of subject imports of picks andmattocks were *** units in 1999, and subject imports were 204,000 units in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 and AppendixC at Table I-18. Shipments of subject imports of axes and adzes were *** units in 1999, and subject imports were184,000 units in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Table I-18. 69 Subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption on a quantity basis of bar and wedges was *** percent in1999 and *** percent in 2010; for subject imports of hammer and sledges it was *** percent in 1999 and ***percent in 2010; for subject imports of picks and mattocks it was *** percent in 1999 and *** percent in 2010; andfor subject imports of axes and adzes it was *** percent in 1999 and *** percent in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 andAppendix C at Tables I-16, I-17, I-18, and I-19. 70 CR at I-19, PR at I-16; Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at p. 23 and Ex. 5; Council’s Response to theNotice of Institution at Ex. 3. 71 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 19. 72 CR/PR at Tables I-6-I-9. 73 Based on the available record, we note that hand tools from China are not subject to import investigations inany third country markets. CR at I-19, PR at I-16.

13

China, and the demonstrated continued importance of the U.S. market to Chinese producers, we find thatChinese producers would likely significantly increase their exports to the United States if the antidumpingduty orders were revoked. Thus, we find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in absolute termsand as a share of the U.S. market, would be significant if the orders were revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping duty orders arerevoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling bythe subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely toenter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effecton prices for the domestic like product.74


The Commission found that persistent or sustained underselling occurred with subject imports ofpicks and mattocks and axes and adzes. The Commission found evidence of underselling of subjectimports of hammers and sledges and bars and wedges, although the patterns of underselling were lessconsistent than those exhibited by the two other products. During the years 1987-1989, average unitvalues (“AUVs”) for subject imports from China were below both the AUVs for the domestic like productand for nonsubject imports for each of the four products.75


In the first five-year reviews, the Commission was unable to gather complete pricing data.76 However, the pricing data available showed significant underselling by subject imports ***. Pricing dataon hammers and sledges showed mixed patterns of overselling and underselling, with *** on someproducts and mixed *** for others. The Commission noted that, despite the imposition of theantidumping duties, AUVs for two of the four products, bars and wedges and picks and mattocks,remained *** AUVs for the domestic like products. The AUV for subject imports of axes and adzes in1999 was *** to the AUV of domestic shipments of axes and adzes. In light of this evidence, theCommission found that the likely significantly increased volumes of lower-priced subject imports wouldadversely and significantly affect prices for the domestic like products upon revocation, and thatrevocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to significant price suppression ordepression by the subject imports of the domestic like product in the reasonably foreseeable future.77

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission noted that it had no public sources of price data. The Commission found that price remained a key element in sales, as the record indicated that Chineseproducers continue to compete in the U.S. market on the basis of price.78 The Commission noted that atthe time of the first five-year reviews, nonsubject imports played an important role in the market makinggains in volume and market share, but mainly at the expense of subject imports, and that nonsubject

74 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that, “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in consideringthe likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely oncircumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAAat 886. 75 Original Determination at 40-44. 76 First Five-Year Review Determination at 13-14. 77 First Five-Year Review Determination at 15-16. 78 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 14-15.

14

import gains in volume and market share gave the Chinese producers and exporters a strong incentive toprice even more aggressively in order to expand their market share in the United States.79 TheCommission stated that the record in the second five-year reviews indicated that nonsubject importscontinue to play a large role in the market.80 Moreover, the Commission found that “the record indicatesthat even in the face of increased material input costs, the majority of Chinese producers and exporters donot intend to raise prices, making it likely that subject import prices will undercut domestic productprices.”81 Accordingly, the Commission determined that likely significant increased volumes of lower-priced subject imports would adversely and significantly affect prices for the domestic like products uponrevocation of the antidumping duty orders.


We note that we have no public sources of price data in these reviews. As noted above, therecord continues to indicate that hand tools are highly substitutable and price remains a key element insales, as Chinese producers continue to compete in the U.S. market on the basis of price.82

At the time of the first reviews, producers aggressively pursued sales in a very competitivemarket.83 There is no indication in the record that the current market is any less competitive. Nonsubjectimports played an important role in the market at that time, making gains in volume and market share, butmainly at the expense of subject imports.84 The Commission found that nonsubject import gains involume and market share gave the Chinese producers and exporters a strong incentive to price even moreaggressively in order to expand their market share in the United States.85 The record in these currentreviews indicates that nonsubject imports continue to play a large role in the market.86

Thus, if the orders were revoked, we find that the likely significantly increasing subject importsfrom China would enter the U.S. market at aggressive prices in an effort to further increase subject importmarket share. In response, domestic producers would either have to reduce their prices or relinquishmarket share.

For the reasons stated above, we find that upon revocation of the orders, subject imports fromChina would be likely to enter the United States at prices that would likely undersell the domestic likeproducts and that would likely have significant suppressing or depressing effects on U.S. producers’prices (and/or would lead to significant lost market share for U.S. producers).

79 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 14. 80 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 14. 81 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 15. 82 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 20-21; Council’s Response to Notice of Institution at 5. 83 First Five-Year Review Determination at 15-16. In the second five-year review, the Commission stated thatthere was no indication in the record that the current market is any less competitive. Second Five-Year ReviewDetermination at 22. 84 First Five-Year Review Determination at 16. 85 First Five-Year Review Determination at 16. In the second five-year review, the Commission found thatnonsubject imports continued to play a large role in the market. Second Five-Year Review Determination at 22. 86 CR/PR at Table I-5.

15

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports87

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty ordersunder review were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that arelikely to have a bearing on the state of the industries in the United States, including, but not limited to thefollowing: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments,and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages,growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existingdevelopment and production efforts of the industries, including efforts to develop a derivative or moreadvanced version of the domestic like product.88 All relevant economic factors are to be consideredwithin the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to theindustries.89 As instructed by the statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in thestate of the domestic industries is related to the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable tomaterial injury if the orders were revoked.


The Commission found that subject imports had a detrimental impact on each of the domesticindustries producing heavy forged hand tools. One producer, the original petitioner, was forced intobankruptcy in 1991, and the domestic producers believe that imposition of the orders was crucial to theindustries’ survival after the injury suffered due to the subject imports in the 1980s.90


In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that, if the antidumping duty orders wererevoked, subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industrieswithin a reasonably foreseeable time. Even with the orders in place, subject imports had successfullycompeted for contracts with some of the largest and most important mass market retailers in the U.S.markets. Given the likely significant increase in volume of subject imports and the resultant intense pricecompetition in a market with sluggish demand growth, the domestic industries would likely experiencesignificant declines in output, sales, and income, with eventual losses in employment and capital andresearch and development expenditures similar to those experienced in the years of the originalinvestigation.91

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission found that subject import volumes were likelyto be significant if the orders were revoked, resulting in significant price effects, which would lead to a

87 Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin ofdumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the“magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping marginor margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C.§ 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. In the final results of its expedited sunset reviews of the antidumpingorders, Commerce published likely dumping margins of 50.81 percent for picks and mattocks; 15.02 percent for axesand adzes; 45.42 percent for hammers and sledges; and 31.76 percent for bars and wedges. CR/PR at Table I-2. 88 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 89 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 90 Original Determination at 26-30. 91 First Five-Year Review Determination at 17-18.

16

significant adverse impact on the domestic industries.92 The Commission found that revocation of theorders would likely lead to significant declines in output, sales and income, with eventual losses inemployment and capital and research and development expenditures. Accordingly, the Commissionconcluded that, if the antidumping duty orders were revoked, subject imports would be likely to have asignificant adverse impact on the domestic industries within a reasonably foreseeable time.93


In these expedited reviews, the record includes limited information on the condition of thedomestic industries. We collected 2010 data for several performance indicators, but we have no data onthe performance of the domestic industries from 2005 to 2009. The limited evidence is insufficient for usto determine whether the domestic industries are vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of materialinjury in the event of revocation of the orders.94

Domestic producers contend in these reviews that material injury is likely to recur were theantidumping duty orders to be revoked, given the likely resumption of large volumes of low-pricedsubject imports of hand tools from China. They argue that the high degree of substitutability between thesubject imports and the domestic like products, the importance of price in the market, and the overlappingchannels of distribution make the domestic market for hand tools “sensitive to fluctuations in the volumeof subject imports, and consequently to subject imports’ price pressure.”95 Were the orders to be revoked,domestic producers assert that “the fluctuations in volume and price resulting from a surge in dumpedChinese HFHTs would result in material injury to the domestic industries.”96

Based on the information available in these reviews, including information in the record of theoriginal investigations and prior reviews, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on handtools from China would likely lead to a significant increase in the volume of subject imports. In addition,subject imports would significantly undersell the domestic products, resulting in significant depressionand/or suppression of U.S. producers’ prices for the domestic like products. We find that the intensifiedprice competition with subject imports that would likely occur after revocation of the orders would likelyhave a significant adverse impact on the domestic industries. Specifically, the domestic industries wouldlikely lose market share to low-priced subject imports and would likely obtain lower prices because ofcompetition from subject imports, which would adversely impact their production, shipments, sales, andrevenues. These reductions would likely have a direct adverse impact on the industries’ profitability andemployment levels, as well as their ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capitalinvestments.

We also have considered the role of factors other than the subject imports so as not to attributeinjury from such factors to subject imports. In 2010, the share of the U.S. market held by nonsubjectimports of each of the four products has remained large; *** percent for bars and wedges, *** percent for

92 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 25. The Commission noted that the evidence in the record wasinsufficient to enable it to determine that the domestic industries producing hand tools were vulnerable. It also notedthat Ames maintained that the industries were vulnerable, based upon the plant closures and decline in productionregarding three of the four products (all excepting picks and mattocks). Id. at 24. 93 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 25. 94 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert agree with their colleagues that the available information regarding thevulnerability of the four domestic industries is insufficient to make definitive determinations on that issue. Theynevertheless find that three of the industries -- axes and adzes, bars and wedges, and hammers and sledges -- appearto be in a significantly weakened state. According to record data, in 2010, those industries had a much smaller shareof apparent U.S. consumption than in previous years (with nonsubject imports in a dominant position). Capacity andproduction were much lower as well. On the other hand, the available information for the picks and mattocksindustry does not suggest such a weakened state. 95 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 13; see also Council’s Response to Notice of Institution at 6. 96 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 13; see also Council’s Response to Notice of Institution at 6.

17

hammers and sledges, *** percent for picks and mattocks, and *** percent for axes and adzes.97 Wenevertheless find that a significant portion of the expected increase in subject imports would continue tobe at the expense of the domestic industry given the likelihood of subject import underselling and adverseprice effects.98

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on handtools from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the respectivedomestic industries within a reasonably foreseeable time.

97 CR/PR at Table I-5. 98 Although at the time of the first reviews nonsubject imports increased significantly in three of the four productcategories, the Commission did not find that the impact of increased volumes of subject imports would fall onnonsubject imports. First Five-Year Review Determination at 25. Rather, it found that all suppliers compete andwere likely to compete intensely in the retail market. Id. There is no indication in the record of these reviews thatthis has changed.

18

INTRODUCTION

Background

On January 3, 2011, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,1 theU.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) gave notice that it had instituted reviews todetermine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools (“HFHTs”)from China would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonablyforeseeable time.2 On April 4, 2011, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party groupresponse to its notice of institution was adequate.3 The Commission also determined that the respondentinterested party group response was inadequate.4 The Commission found no other circumstances thatwould warrant conducting full reviews.5 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conductexpedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930.6 The Commission istentatively scheduled to vote on these reviews on July 27, 2011, and will notify the U.S. Department ofCommerce (“Commerce”) of its determinations on August 10, 2011. Information relating to thebackground of the reviews is presented below:7

1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c). 2 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China, 76 FR 168, January 3, 2011. All interested parties were requested torespond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the Commission. The Commission’s notice ofinstitution is presented in app. A. 3 The Commission received two submissions in response to its notice of institution for the subject reviews. Thefirst submission was filed on behalf of Ames True Temper (“Ames”). Ames, a U.S. producer of all four domesticlike products, is believed to account for the majority of U.S. production, with the exception of picks and mattocks,for which it accounted for approximately *** percent of total U.S. production. The second submission was filed onbehalf of Council Tool Co., Inc. (“Council”), a U.S. producer of all four domestic like products. See also theCommission’s memorandum of March 29, 2011, INV-JJ-024–Recommendation on Adequacy of Responses to Noticeof Institution. 4 Fiskars, a U.S. importer of HFHTs during the period of review, submitted a response to the Commission’snotice of institution. On February 28, 2011, after given an opportunity to remedy deficiencies in its response to thenotice of institution, counsel to Fiskars submitted a letter stating that it no longer intended to participate in thesereviews and requested that its response be withdrawn. Fiskars reported that ***. The Commission did not receive aresponse from any other respondent interested party. 5 The Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B. 6 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3). 7 Cited Federal Register notices beginning with the Commission’s institution of third five-year reviews arepresented in app. A.

I-1

Effective date Action Federal Registercitation

February 19, 1991 Commerce’s original antidumping duty orders issued 56 FR 6622

February 16, 2006 Commerce’s continuation of antidumping duty ordersafter second five-year reviews

71 FR 8276

January 3, 2011 Commission’s institution of third five-year reviews 76 FR 168

April 8, 2011 Commission’s determinations to conduct expeditedthird five-year reviews and scheduling of such reviews

76 FR 31631, June 1,2011

May 3, 2011 Commerce’s final results of expedited third five-yearreviews

76 FR 24856

July 27, 2011 Commission’s vote Not applicable

August 10, 2011 Commission’s determinations to Commerce Not applicable

The Original Investigation and Subsequent Five-Year Reviews

These investigations resulted from a petition filed on April 4, 1990 by Woodings-VeronaToolworks, Verona, PA8 in which it alleged injury to a U.S. industry from U.S. imports from China ofHFHTs.9 The Commission completed the original investigation in February 1991 and determined thatindustries in the United States were threatened with material injury by reason of imports of HFHTs fromChina.10 Subsequently, Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on imports of HFHTs from China.11

In June 2000, the Commission completed full five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders,and determined that revocation of the orders on HFHTs from China would be likely to lead tocontinuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonablyforeseeable time.12 On February 4, 2000, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping dutyorders on picks and mattocks and axes and adzes from China would likely lead to continuation orrecurrence of dumping.13 On June 2, 2000, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty

8 Ames is the successor company to Woodings-Verona Tool Works, Inc. 9 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China: Inv. No. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITCPublication 2357, February 1991, p. A-1. 10 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China: Inv. No. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITCPublication 2357, February 1991, p. 1. The Commission stated that its affirmative determinations included theindustries producing striking tools (or “hammers and sledges” with heads over 1.5 kg. or 3.3 lbs.), bar tools (barsover 18 inches in length, track tools, and wedges, or “bars and wedges”), digging tools (or “picks and mattocks”),and hewing tools (or “axes and adzes”). 11 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 6622, February 19, 1991. 12 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China: Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (A-D) (Review), USITC Publication 3322,July 2000, p. 1. 13 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 5497, February 4, 2000.

I-2

orders on hammers and sledges and bars and wedges from China would likely lead to continuation orrecurrence of dumping.14

In January 2006, the Commission completed expedited five-year reviews of the antidumping dutyorders on HFHTs from China and determined that revocation of the orders would be likely to lead tocontinuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonablyforeseeable time.15 On November 7, 2005, in its expedited second five-year reviews, Commerce foundthat revocation of the antidumping duty orders on all four domestic like products from China would likelylead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.16

Commerce’s Administrative Reviews

Since 2006, when the antidumping duty orders were last continued, Commerce conducted twoadministrative reviews with respect to imports of HFHTs from China. No producers of HFHTs in Chinahave been excluded from the antidumping orders. Table I-1 shows these administrative reviews, theirperiod of review, and resulting margins.

14 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 35321, June 2, 2000. 15 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China: Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (A-D) (Second Review), USITC Publication3836, January 2006, p. 1. 16 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 67451, November 7, 2005.

I-3

Table I-1Commerce’s administrative reviews, 2006-2011

Period of review Exporter Margin (percent ad valorem)

Federal Registercitation

Axes and Adzes

2004-2005 TMC 189.37 71 FR 54269

Haurong 189.37

SMC 189.37

All others 189.37

2005-2006 China-wide 189.37 72 FR 51787

Bar and Wedges

2004-2005 TMC 139.31 71 FR 54269

Huarong 139.31

SMC 104.54

Iron Bull 139.31

All others 139.31

2005-2006 China-wide 139.31 72 FR 51787

Hammers and Sledges

2004-2005 TMC 45.42 71 FR 54269

SMC 34.56

All others 45.42

2005-2006 China-wide 45.42 72 FR 51787

Picks and Mattocks

2004-2005 TMC 53.04 71 FR 54269

SMC 98.77

All others 98.77

2005-2006 China-wide 98.77 72 FR 51787

I-4

Commerce’s Final Results of Its Expedited Third Five-Year Reviews

On May 3, 2011, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on HFHTsfrom China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.17 The weighted-averagedumping margins (in percent ad valorem), as reported by Commerce, for the original investigations andsubsequent five-year reviews are presented in Table I-2.

Table I-2Commerce’s weight-average dumping margins for the original investigations and subsequent five-year reviews

Country and firm

OriginalFirst

reviewsSecondreviews

Thirdreviews

Margin (percent)

Axes and Adzes

All exporters 15.02 15.02 15.02 15.02

Bars and Wedges

All exporters 31.76 31.76 31.76 31.76

Hammers and Sledges

All exporters 45.42 45.42 45.42 45.42

Picks and Mattocks

All exporters 50.81 50.81 50.81 50.81

Source: Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e. Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks) From thePeople’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 76 FR 24856, May3, 2011.

SUMMARY DATA

Appendix C presents selected data from all investigations and reviews that the Commission hascompiled regarding HFHTs since the original investigations. Appendix C(a) presents selected data foraxes and adzes. Appendix C(b) presents selected data for bars and wedges. Appendix C(c) presentsselected data for hammers and sledges. Appendix C(d) presents selected data for picks and mattocks.

17 Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e. Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks)From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping DutyOrders, 76 FR 24856, May 3, 2011.

I-5

THE SUBJECT PRODUCT

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce defined the scope of these reviews in its notice of its final results of the expeditedreviews as follows:

The products covered by these orders are hand tools (“HFHTs”) comprising the following classesor kinds of merchandise: (1) hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds); (2) bars over 18inches in length, track tools, and wedges; (3) picks and mattocks; and (4) axes, adzes, and similar hewingtools. HFHTs include heads for drilling, hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks, and mattocks, which mayor may not be painted, which may or may not be finished, or which may or may not be imported withhandles; assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging bars, and tampers; andsteel woodsplitting wedges. HFHTs are manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel issheared to required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipmentusing dies specific to the desired product shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operationsmay include shot blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the insertion of handles for handledproduct. HFHTs are currently provided for under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States (“HTS”) subheadings 8201.30.00, 8201.40.60, 8205.20.60, and 8205.59.30. Specificallyexcluded from these reviews are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kilograms (3.33 pounds) in weightand under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and under.18

18 Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e. Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks)From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping DutyOrders, 76 FR 24856, May 3, 2011.

Since the original investigations, Commerce has issued ten conclusive scope rulings regarding themerchandise covered by these orders: (1) On August 16, 1993, the Commerce found the “Max Multi-Purpose Axe,”imported by the Forrest Tool Co., to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (2) on March 8, 2001, Commercefound “18–inch” and “24– inch” pry bars, produced without dies, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. and SMCPacific Tools, Inc., to be within the scope of the bars/wedges order; (3) on March 8, 2001, Commerce found the“Pulaski” tool, produced without dies by TMC, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (4) on March 8, 2001, Commerce found the “skinning axe,” imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be within the scope of the axes/adzesorder; (5) on December 9, 2004, Commerce found the “Scrapek MUTT,” imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc.,under HTS 8205.59.5510, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (6) on May 23, 2005, Commerce found 8inch by 8 inch and 10 inch by 10 inch cast tampers, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. to be outside the scope ofthe orders; (7) on October 14, 2005, Commerce found the “Mean Green Splitting Machine” imported by AvalancheIndustries to be within the scope of the bars/wedges order; (8) on February 20, 2008, Commerce found that “stampedmachetes, gator machetes, and brush axes” imported by Fiskars are not within the scope of the orders; (9) onDecember 1, 2008, Commerce found that New Buffalo Corp.’s “4 Ton Electric Log Splitter” was not within thescope of the orders; and (10) on February 25, 2011, Commerce found that “stubby bar” imported by Olympia Toolswas not within the scope of the orders. Ibid; Notice of Scope Rulings, 73 FR 9293, February 20, 2008; Notice ofScope Rulings, 73 FR 72771, December 1, 2008; Notice of Scope Rulings, 76 FR 10558, February 25, 2011.

I-6

U.S. Tariff Treatment19

Merchandise classified under the following HTS subheadings have a tariff rate of free: (1) HTSsubheading 8205.20.60–(hammers/sledges) hammers and sledge hammers, and parts thereof, with headsover 1.5 kg each; (2) HTS subheading 8205.59.30–(bars/wedges) crowbars, track tools, and wedges, andparts thereof; and (3) HTS subheading 8201.30.00–(mattocks/picks) mattocks, picks, hoes and rakes, andparts thereof. Merchandise under HTS subheading 8201.40.60–(axes/adzes), axes, bill hooks, and similarhewing tools, and parts thereof, other than machetes and parts thereof, are dutiable at a general tariff rateof 6.2 percent ad valorem.20

Domestic Like Products and Domestic Industry

In its original determinations, the first full five-year reviews, and the second expedited five-yearreviews, the Commission found four domestic like products: (1) axes, adzes, and hewing tools, other thanmachetes, with or without handles; (2) bar tools, track tools, and wedges; (3) hammers and sledges, withheads weighing two pounds or more, with or without handles; and (4) picks and mattocks, with or withouthandles.21 Ames and Council indicated in their responses to the Commission’s notice of institution inthese third reviews that it agrees with the Commission’s definition of the four domestic like products.22

In its original determinations, the full first review, and second expedited review, the Commissionfound four domestic industries corresponding with the four separate domestic like product definitions. Inthe original investigations, the Commission excluded from the domestic industries companies that did nomore than assemble imported heads with handles purchased from a domestic manufacturer. TheCommission also excluded one domestic producer, Madison Mill, from the domestic industries under therelated parties provision.23 In the first review determinations, the Commission found that Madison Milldid not engage in sufficient production-related activity to be considered a domestic producer.24 In thesecond expedited review, the Commission did not exclude any company as a related party. Ames andCouncil indicated in their responses to the Commission’s notice of institution in these third reviews that it

19 Effective July 1, 2005, in Supplement I of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2005),statistical annotations were provided for: (1) mattocks and picks, and parts thereof, HTS statistical reporting number8201.30.00.10; (2) axes and adzes, and parts thereof, statistical reporting number HTS 8201.40.6010; and (3)crowbars, HTS statistical reporting number 8205.59.3010. 20 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2011). Imports of these products are eligible for duty-freeentry under a number of trade preference and free trade agreements between the United States and other countrieslisted under the Special sub-column in column 1 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The 2011 column 2 rate ofduty, applicable to countries listed in HTS general note 3(b), is 45 percent ad valorem for 8201.30.00 and8201.40.60; 20 percent for 8205.20.60; 3 cents per kilogram for 8205.59.30. 21 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITCPublication 2357, February 1991, p. 15. 22 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 25; Council’s Response to Notice of Institution,February 2, 2011, p. 9. Council stated that it wished to reserve the right to comment on the appropriate definitionsduring the course of the proceeding. 23 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITCPublication 2357, February 1991, p. 19. 24 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (Review), USITC Publication 3322, July 2000,p. 7, fn. 24.

I-7

agrees with the Commission’s definition of the domestic industries and does not advocate excluding anyU.S. producer from the domestic industry as a related party.25

Description and Uses26

Axes and Adzes

Axes and adzes are hewing tools. Axes are generally grouped into two categories: large axes andspecial-purpose axes. Large axes are intended primarily for chopping wood. They are manufactured witheither two cutting edges (double-bit) or a single cutting edge (single-bit). The single-bit axe has on theopposite side of the axe head a hammer face that can be used for pounding. Special-purpose axes aredesigned to function as two tools. For example, the mattock axe is a single-bit axe with an adze-shapedgrubbing blade on the back and is designed for digging, prying, or chopping. Adzes are used in shapingwood, and may have either a flat or curved blade at a right angle to the handle.

Bars and Wedges

The principal product of bars and wedges is the crowbar. This tool typically has a gooseneck-likeshape to the bar at the claw end for pulling nails and spikes, and a chisel blade at the other end of thebar for prying. Other bars, such as wrecking bars, may be flattened. Various configurations of curvesallow for differing degrees of leverage in prying operations. Included in bars and wedges are diggingbars and tampers. Bars are used for demolition, scraping, lifting, or prying apart floor tile, woodpaneling, nailed wood items, wood molding, and/or removing nails and spikes from wood. Digging barsare used to break up hardened soil and tampers are used to compact loose soil or asphalt. Wedges areused in splitting wood.

Hammers and Sledges

Heavy hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) have heads that are heavierthan claw-type (carpenters’) hammers or ball peen type (machinists’) hammers. Heavy hammer andsledge heads included in the scope of the investigation are over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) in weight, and mayweigh as much as 9.1 kg (20 pounds). Sledge hammers are heavy hammers used for driving stakes,wedges, or other objects. Woodsplitting mauls resemble sledge hammers except that they have one axe-like edge. Primarily, they are intended to split wood without the use of wedges, but the blunt end may beused for striking stakes, wedges, or other objects as one would with a sledge hammer. Hammers andsledges, including mauls, within the scope of the antidumping duty order typically have handles made ofwood or fiberglass.

25 Neither Ames nor Council is related to a producer of HFHTs from China. Neither firm reported importingHFHTs from China during the period of review. Ames reported that it is related to Garant, a Canadian importer ofHFHTs from China, which does not import subject product into the United States. Ames’ Response to Notice ofInstitution, February 2, 2011, pp. 22-25; Council’s Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 7. 26 All of the discussion in this section is from the original investigation, unless otherwise noted. Heavy ForgedHand Tools from China: Inv. Nos. 731-TA-457 (A-D) (Second Review), USITC Publication 3836, January 2006, p.I-13.

I-8

Picks and Mattocks

Picks and mattocks are produced in a number of styles and sizes, and differ principally in theweight of the head, the angle and size of the prongs, and the shape of the pick points. Picks are generallyused for digging in relatively hard soil, striking the soil with the point of the pick head, whereas themattock has one side of the head being a broad blade and is used in relatively soft soil. Both mattocksand picks are produced with either wood or fiberglass handles.

Manufacturing Process27

Heavy forged hand tools are manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is shearedto the required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipmentusing dies specific to the desired product shape and size. Depending upon the product, finishingoperations may include shot blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and insertion of the handles forhandled products. Handles are made of wood or molded fiberglass. The manufacturing of wood handlesinvolves cutting, drying, sanding, and finishing.

Marketing28

Little public information is available about the HFHT market in 2011. The most recent dataavailable are from the first full reviews completed in 2000 (with data from 1998 and 1999). Fourchannels of distribution exist in the HFHT market: (1) sales to distributors; (2) sales to retailers; (3) salesto large end users; and (4) sales to OEMs.29 Based on information obtained in the original investigations,both producers and importers predominantly sell in the spot market and both reported selling nationwide.

With regard to current retail sales in 2011, there appears to be significant sales at Internet retailsites. In some instances, the companies using this method do not have physical retail locations.30

Other retailers using the Internet will sometimes list for sale products that can be purchased only throughthe Internet or their catalog, and will not stock those products at their retail locations.31

Axes and Adzes

In 1999, over *** percent of U.S. shipments of axes and adzes included handles. Approximately*** percent of such shipments went to the hardware segment of the market, with the majority going tohardware wholesalers (*** percent) and the remainder going to the hardware retailers (*** percent).

27 See Heavy Forged Handtools From the People’s Republic of China: Inv. No. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITCPublication 2357, February 1991, pp. A-3 and A-4 and Commerce’s notice of final results of expedited review, 70FR 67451, November 7, 2005. 28 All of the discussion in this section is from the second full five-year reviews, unless otherwise noted. HeavyForged Hand Tools from China: Inv. Nos. 731-TA-457 (A-D) (Second Review), USITC Publication 3836, January2006, pp. I-16-I-18. 29 Most OEMs manufacture handles, purchase heads, and assemble the finished tool which they sell under theirown name. 30 For example, see Internet retailer Doityourself.com, found at http://www.doityourself.com. 31 For example, see Home Depot, Inc. Internet site, http://www.homedepot.com, for product category wrecking,nail pullers, and pry bars.

I-9

About *** percent were sold to the industrial segment, *** percent were shipped to OEMs, andapproximately *** percent was sold to the government sector in 1999.

Bars and Wedges

Approximately *** percent of 1999 shipments of bars and wedges went to the hardware segmentof the market, with a small percentage going to hardware wholesalers (*** percent) and the majoritygoing to hardware retailers (*** percent). About *** percent were sold to the industrial segment, about*** percent were shipped to OEMs, and approximately *** percent were sold to the government sector in1999.

Hammers and Sledges

In 1999, over *** percent of U.S. shipments of hammers and sledges included handles. Over ***percent of such shipments went to the hardware segment of the market, with slightly more going tohardware wholesalers (*** percent) than hardware retailers (*** percent). About *** percent were soldto the industrial segment, about *** percent were shipped to OEMs, and less than *** percent were soldto the government sector in 1999.

Picks and Mattocks

Approximately *** percent of 1999 shipments of picks and mattocks went to the hardwaresegment of the market, with *** hardware wholesalers and hardware retailers. About *** percent weresold to the industrial segment, about *** percent were shipped to OEMs, and approximately *** percentwas sold to the government sector in 1999.

Changes in the market reported in 1999 (compared with 1990, the time of the originalinvestigation) were the growth of large retailers such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and Lowe’s, whichlengthened the time frame of sales agreements and increased the importance of price competition. Alsoreported by U.S. producers was an increase in production for private label use and specialty customers.

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

The original investigations resulted from a petition filed on behalf of Woodings-Verona ToolWorks, Inc. (Woodings-Verona) on April 4, 1990. At that time, there were essentially four U.S.producers of heavy forged hand tools (“HFHTs”): Council Tool Co., Inc. (Council); Mann Edge ToolCo. (Mann Edge); Warwood Tool Co. (Warwood); and Woodings-Verona.32 Only two, Warwood andWoodings-Verona, produced all four domestic like products. Council and Mann Edge produced alldomestic like products except picks and mattocks. During the original investigation, Woodings-Veronaaccounted for *** percent of all HFHT subject imports from China in 1989. Mann Edge accounted for*** percent of all subject imports in that year.

32 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITCPublication 2357, February 1991, p. A-6. In 1989, there was an insignificant number of other firms that alsoproduced some or all of the four domestic like products; however, their production capability was believed to beminuscule.

I-10

Subsequent to the original investigations, Woodings-Verona filed for protection under Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Code. Woodings-Verona emerged from bankruptcy and was purchased by O. Ames in1997. J&H Manufacturing (J&H) entered the industry in 1997, founded by former employees ofWoodings-Verona after the 1997 acquisition by O. Ames. It produced only bars and wedges. At the timeof the first five-year reviews in 1999, there were five major U.S. producers of HFHTs: Ames, Council,Mann Edge, J&H, and Warwood. *** accounted for *** percent of all subject imports of HFHTs in 1999.*** accounted for *** percent of subject imports in that year.33

In March 1999, O. Ames merged with True Temper Companies, a hardware firm. In January2002, Ames True Temper was purchased by Wind Point Partners, a private equity investment firm inconjunction with current officers of Ames, from Ames’ parent, U.S. Industries, Inc. In June 2004, Ameswas purchased by Castle Harlan, a private equity firm and certain current employees. As a result ofincreased imports, workers at Mann Edge Tool Co. were certified for eligibility to apply for TradeAdjustment Assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Labor in April 2001 (for the period January 5,2000 to April 5, 2003) and in September 2003 (for the period September 15, 2003 to September 15,2005).34 Warwood is still producing HFHTs according to the response by Council to the notice ofinstitution. In these third five-year reviews, Ames and Council stated in their responses to theCommission’s notice of institution that they and Warwood are the only remaining U.S. producers ofHFHTs.35 Ames estimated that in 2010, it accounted for *** percent of U.S. production of axes andadzes, *** percent of U.S. production of bars and wedges, *** percent of U.S. production of hammersand sledges, and *** percent of U.S. production of picks and mattocks.36

U.S. Producers’ Trade and Financial Data

Domestic interested parties were requested by the Commission to present certain data in theirresponse to the notice of institution.37 Table I-3 presents U.S. producers’ 2010 data on its operations forall four domestic like products.38

Table I-3HFHTs: U.S. producers’ trade and financial data, 2010

* * * * * * *

33 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (Review), USITC Publication 3322, July 2000,pp. I-9-10. 34 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 A-D (Second Review), USITC Publication 3836,January 2006, pp. I-15-16. 35 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 22, exh. 3; Council’s Response to Notice ofInstitution, February 2, 2011, pp. 6-7. 36 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 22, exh. 3; Council’s Response to Notice ofInstitution, February 2, 2011, exh. 3. Council estimated that it accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S.production of all four domestic like products. Council’s Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 7. 37 Total U.S. industry data for 2010, the only year for which data were collected, is compiled from Ames’ andCouncil’s responses to the Commission’s notice of institution. 38 Data from the original investigations and subsequent five-year reviews are presented in Appendix C.

I-11

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Importers

During the original investigation, the Commission identified approximately 16 firms thatimported HFHTs from China, including the Atlas Group; Hickory Forge; Kulkoni, Inc.; Madison Mill;Olympia, Tools, Inc.; and Woodings-Verona.39 During the first sunset reviews, there were five firms thatimported HFHTs from China, including American Presto Corp.; Home Depot, Inc.; Madison Mill, Inc.;***; and Olympia Group, Inc.40

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution for these reviews, Ames listed two U.S.firms that it believes imported HFHTs from China: ***.41 Council listed 9 U.S. firms that it believedimported HFHTs from China.42 These firms include: ***43***.

U.S. Imports

The quantity, value, and unit value of U.S. imports of HFHTs from 2005 to 2010 are shown intable I-4. U.S. imports from China and nonsubject countries are based on official Commerce statistics:Axes and adzes (HTS 8201.40.6010); Bars and wedges (HTS 8205.59.30); Hammers and sledges (HTS8205.20.60); Picks and mattocks (HTS 8201.30.0010). All of these HTS subheadings, with the exceptionof 8205.20.60, which refers to hammers and sledges, are broader product categories that include not onlysubject merchandise, but also may include nonsubject merchandise, such as rakes, bill hooks, hoes,machetes, and track tools among other nonsubject items.

39 Staff Report of January 28, 1991, pp. A-13-14. 40 Staff Report of June 16, 2000, p. I-18. 41 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 23, exh. 5. 42 Council’s Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, exh. 3. 43 Ames reported that ***. Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 15.

I-12

Table I-4HFHTs: U.S. imports from all sources, 2005-2010

Item 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 units)

Axes and adzes:

China 433 311 215 172 132 184

All other 604 1,939 1,972 2,187 1,711 2,152

Total 1,037 2,250 2,187 2,359 1,843 2,336

Bars and wedges:

China 1,008 1,857 1,837 1,547 1,446 2,001

All other 2,174 5,654 4,070 4,195 3,622 6,144

Total 3,182 7,511 5,907 5,742 5,068 8,145

Hammers and sledges:

China 80 80 67 62 215 695

All other 163 207 165 198 789 2,067

Total 243 287 232 260 1,004 2,762

Picks and mattocks:

China 1,756 4,622 1,860 328 132 204

All other 1,425 3,375 1,947 2,527 950 1,466

Total 3,181 7,997 3,806 2,855 1,082 1,670

Value ($1,000)

Axes and adzes:

China 1,366 1,279 1,455 1,505 899 1,068

All other 4,456 11,798 11,341 14,194 12,572 15,612

Total 5,822 13,077 12,796 15,699 13,471 16,680

Bars and wedges:

China 2,600 4,330 4,637 4,547 3,365 3,787

All other 7,888 28,765 21,363 24,609 18,526 24,422

Total 10,488 33,095 26,000 29,156 21,891 28,209

Table continued on next page.

I-13

Table I-4--ContinuedHFHTs: U.S. imports from all sources, 2005-2010

Item 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Value ($1,000)


China 3,637 3,703 2,654 3,551 2,134 3,145

All other 11,248 13,984 12,815 14,622 13,240 17,607

Total 14,885 17,687 15,469 18,173 15,374 20,752

Picks and mattocks:

China 3,842 9,629 2,908 870 302 316

All other 4,508 9,701 6,460 8,076 4,273 8,131

Total 8,350 19,330 9,368 8,946 4,575 8,447

Unit value (dollars per unit)

Axes and adzes:

China $3.16 $4.11 $6.77 $8.75 $6.81 $5.80

All other 7.38 6.08 5.75 6.49 7.35 7.25

Total 5.61 5.81 5.85 6.65 7.31 7.14

Bars and wedges:

China $2.58 $2.33 $2.52 $2.94 $2.33 $1.89

All other 3.63 5.09 5.25 5.87 5.11 3.98

Total 3.30 4.41 4.40 5.08 4.32 3.46


China $45.28 $46.03 $39.61 $57.26 $9.91 $4.53

All other 69.11 67.53 77.61 73.75 16.79 8.52

Total 61.24 61.52 66.64 69.82 15.31 7.51

Picks and mattocks:

China $2.19 $2.08 $1.56 $2.66 $2.28 $1.55

All other 3.16 2.87 3.32 3.20 4.50 5.54

Total 2.63 2.42 2.46 3.13 4.23 5.06

Source: Official statistics of the Department of Commerce.

I-14

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares of HFHTs for 2010 is shown in table I-5.

Table I-5HFHTs: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, apparent U.S.consumption, and U.S. market shares, 2010

ItemAxes and

AdzesBars andWedges

Hammers andSledges

Picks andMattocks

Quantity (1,000 units)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from–

China 184 2,001 695 204

Other sources 2,152 6,144 2,067 1,466

Total U.S. imports 2,336 8,145 2,762 1,670

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)



China *** *** *** ***

Other sources *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000 dollars)



China 1,068 3,787 3,145 316

Other sources 15,612 24,422 17,607 8,131

Total U.S. imports 16,680 28,209 20,752 8,447

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** ***

Share of value (percent)



China *** *** *** ***

Other sources *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports *** *** *** ***Source: Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011 as amended by supplemental information, March 10, 2011;Council’s Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011 as amended by supplemental information, March 10, 2011 andOfficial statistics of the Department of Commerce.

I-15

ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Based on available information, HFHTs have not been subject to any other import reliefinvestigations in any other countries.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

There are no public sources, either domestic or foreign, that compile specific data for the totalcapacity or production of HFHTs in China.44 At the time of the original investigation there were anestimated 500 producers of HFHTs in China and 130 importers. During the first sunset reviews therewere estimated to be 12 major producers in China. In February 2004, Ames requested that Commerceconduct administrative reviews on 302 companies in China, covering all four antidumping duty orders. InMarch 2004, Commerce initiated reviews of 194 companies. Of the 194 firms, 187 did not respond toCommerce’s shortened Section A questionnaire. In its response to the Commission’s notice of institutionfor these reviews, Ames listed 87 firms that it believes produced HFHTs in China since 2004.45 Councillisted 8 firms, which it believes are major firms that have exported HFHTs to the United States. Thesefirms include:46 ***.

Tables I-6 through I-9 present Chinese export data for the four corresponding domestic likeproducts from 2005 to 2010. The data are compiled using the Global Trade Atlas which provides dataonly to a 6-digit classification level and therefore, may also include products that are not within the scopeof these reviews.

44 Ames, however, provided anecdotal evidence that a number of Chinese producers of HFHTs may haveincreased production during the period of review and remained export oriented. Ames’ Response to Notice ofInstitution, February 2, 2011, pp. 17-19. 45 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 23, exh. 5. 46 Council’s Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, exh. 3. These are also the larger firms that haverequested administrative reviews from Commerce since 1999.

I-16

Table I-6Axes and adzes:1 Chinese exports, 2005-2010

Export market

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Value (1,000 dollars)

United States 3,379 2,495 2,032 2,011 1,666 1,971

Nigeria 573 328 250 139 1,737 3,484

Kenya 1,107 1,829 3,790 2,771 2,682 3,424

Germany 1,497 1,750 2,729 3,443 2,823 3,243

Netherlands 3,292 5,088 4,723 3,962 3,837 3,207

All other 21,097 23,128 28,294 37,505 27,453 34,430

Total 30,945 34,618 41,819 49,831 40,197 49,759

Share of value (percent)

United States 10.9 7.2 4.9 4.0 4.1 4.0

Nigeria 1.9 0.9 0.6 0.3 4.3 7.0

Kenya 3.6 5.3 9.1 5.6 6.7 6.9

Germany 4.8 5.1 6.5 6.9 7.0 6.5

Netherlands 10.6 14.7 11.3 8.0 9.5 6.4

All other 68.2 66.8 67.7 75.3 68.3 69.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Chinese tariff number 8201.40, includes other hewing tools, such as machetes, bill hooks, and parts thereof.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

I-17

Table I-7Bars and wedges:1 Chinese exports, 2005-2010

Export market

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


United States 134,934 171,018 161,920 133,955 105,088 131,876

Germany 17,495 22,615 24,115 23,213 14,365 21,265

United Kingdom 17,690 21,034 24,131 20,337 14,311 21,264

Netherlands 15,314 16,549 20,902 17,410 11,514 16,589

Russia 7,024 10,065 14,914 17,108 9,008 16,223

All other 162,117 189,903 223,223 225,043 167,320 233,107

Total 354,574 431,184 469,204 437,066 321,606 440,325

Ratios and shares (percent)

United States 38.1 39.7 34.5 30.6 32.7 29.9

Germany 4.9 5.2 5.1 5.3 4.5 4.8

United Kingdom 5.0 4.9 5.1 4.7 4.4 4.8

Netherlands 4.3 3.8 4.5 4.0 3.6 3.8

Russia 2.0 2.3 3.2 3.9 2.8 3.7

All other 45.7 44.0 47.6 51.5 52.0 52.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Data are for Chinese tariff number 8205.59, which includes data on a wide variety of miscellaneous hand tools such ascrowbars, track tools, and wedges; powder-actuated tools; pipe tools; caulking guns; single edge razor blades other than forshaving; agricultural, horticultural, or forestry tools; other hand tools; and parts thereof. Many of these tools are not covered byCommerce’s product scope.


I-18

Table I-8Hammers and sledges:1 Chinese exports, 2005-2010

Export market

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


United States 27,057 28,526 29,541 31,232 24,400 30,481

United Kingdom 5,956 7,228 8,075 8,336 4,648 7,638

Indonesia 3,954 5,531 4,695 5,186 5,252 7,353

United Arab Emirates 5,799 7,593 7,811 9,420 6,194 6,516

Germany 3,596 4,158 4,489 7,568 5,187 6,509

All other 71,881 81,334 98,804 119,340 91,455 120,254

Total 118,243 134,370 153,416 181,082 137,137 178,752


United States 22.9 21.2 19.3 17.2 17.8 17.1

United Kingdom 5.0 5.4 5.3 4.6 3.4 4.3

Indonesia 3.3 4.1 3.1 2.9 3.8 4.1

United Arab Emirates 4.9 5.7 5.1 5.2 4.5 3.6

Germany 3.0 3.1 2.9 4.2 3.8 3.6

All other 60.8 60.5 64.4 65.9 66.7 67.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Chinese tariff number 8205.20, includes other hammers and sledge hammers with a head of 1.5 kg or less, and partsthereof, which are not covered by Commerce’s product scope.

Source: Global Trade Atlas

I-19

Table I-9Picks and mattocks:1 Chinese exports, 2005-2010

Export market

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


United States 15,243 16,490 13,612 17,147 16,755 21,489

Kenya 5,015 5,961 8,097 10,482 11,022 9,925

Tanzania 5,596 3,755 4,875 9,017 8,643 9,234

Japan 4,483 4,002 4,347 4,940 6,770 5,961

Malaysia 4,583 3,440 3,105 2,254 4,976 4,726

All other 29,198 36,007 41,242 51,241 46,643 63,389

Total 64,118 69,657 75,278 95,081 94,809 114,724


United States 23.8 23.7 18.1 18.0 17.7 18.7

Kenya 7.8 8.6 10.8 11.0 11.6 8.7

Tanzania 8.7 5.4 6.5 9.5 9.1 8.0

Japan 7.0 5.7 5.8 5.2 7.1 5.2

Malaysia 7.1 4.9 4.1 2.4 5.2 4.1

All other 45.5 51.7 54.8 53.9 49.2 55.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Chinese tariff number 8201.30, includes hoes and rakes, and parts thereof.


I-20

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

168 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices

1 No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 11–5–235, expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm’s operations on that product during calendar year 2010, except as noted (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production;

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix);

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s);

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include both U.S. and export commercial sales, internal consumption, and company transfers) for your most recently completed fiscal year (identify the date on which your fiscal year ends).

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2010 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) imports;

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country; and

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country.

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2010 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production;

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and

(c) the quantity and value of your firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports.

(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country after 2004, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs

into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries.

(13) (Optional) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.

Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission. Issued: December 22, 2010.

Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2010–32697 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–457–A–D (Third Review)]

Heavy Forged Hand Tools From China

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools from China.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission; 1 to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:48 Dec 30, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM 03JAN1jlent

ini o

n D

SK

J8S

OY

B1P

RO

D w

ith N

OT

ICE

S


Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436.

be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is February 2, 2011. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by March 18, 2011. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 2847 (January 16, 2009). DATES: Effective Date: January 3, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background.—On February 19, 1991, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) issued antidumping duty orders on imports of the following classes or kinds of heavy forged hand tools from China: (1) Axes and adzes, (2) bars and wedges, (3) hammers and sledges, and (4) picks and mattocks (56 FR 6622). Following the first five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective August 10, 2000, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on imports of heavy forged hand tools from China (65 FR 48962). Following second five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective February 16, 2006, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty orders on imports of heavy forged hand tools from China (71 FR 8276). The Commission is now conducting third reviews to determine whether revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to

determine whether to conduct full reviews or expedited reviews. The Commission’s determinations in any expedited reviews will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

Definitions.—The following definitions apply to these reviews:

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year reviews, as defined by Commerce.

(2) The Subject Country in these reviews is China.

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determinations, its full first five-year review determinations, and its expedited second five-year review determinations, the Commission found four Domestic Like Products: (1) Axes, adzes, and hewing tools, other than machetes, with or without handles; (2) bar tools, track tools, and wedges; (3) hammers and sledges, with heads weighing two pounds or more, with or without handles; and (4) picks and mattocks, with or without handles.

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determinations, its full first five-year review determinations, and its expedited second five-year review determinations, the Commission found four Domestic Industries: (1) Domestic producers of axes, adzes and hewing tools, other than machetes, with or without handles; (2) domestic producers of bar tools, track tools, and wedges; (3) domestic producers of hammers and sledges, with heads weighing two pounds or more, with or without handles; and (4) domestic producers of picks and mattocks, with or without handles. The Commission excluded from the Domestic Industries companies that do no more than assemble imported heads with handles purchased from a domestic manufacturer. In the original determinations, the Commission also excluded one domestic producer, Madison Mill, from the Domestic Industries under the related parties provision. In the first reviews, the Commission did not find that Madison Mill engaged in sufficient production- related activity to be considered a domestic producer.

(5) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent.

Participation in the reviews and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission’s rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews.

Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation. The Commission’s designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not considered the ‘‘same particular matter’’ as the corresponding underlying original investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was developed in consultation with the Office of Government Ethics. Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 3088.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A


ini o

n D

SK

J8S

OY

B1P

RO

D w

ith N

OT

ICE

S


separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Certification.—Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with these reviews must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.

Written submissions.—Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is February 2, 2011. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct expedited or full reviews. The deadline for filing such comments is March 18, 2011. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the reviews you do not need to serve your response).

Inability to provide requested information.—Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest

possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act in making its determinations in the reviews.

Information to be Provided in Response to this Notice of Institution: Please provide the requested information separately for each Domestic Like Product, as defined by the Commission in its determinations, and for each of the products identified by Commerce as Subject Merchandise. As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms.

(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Products, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.

(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in these reviews by providing information requested by the Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty orders on the Domestic Industries in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industries.

(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Products. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject

Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries after 2004.

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the Domestic Like Products and the Subject Merchandise (including street address, World Wide Web address, and the name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of a responsible official at each firm).

(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the Domestic Like Products or the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or other markets.

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Products, provide the following information on your firm’s operations on that product during calendar year 2010, except as noted (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/ business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Products accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production;

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Domestic Like Products (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix);

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Products produced in your U.S. plant(s);

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Products produced in your U.S. plant(s); and

(e) The value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the Domestic Like Products produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include both U.S. and export commercial sales, internal consumption, and company transfers) for your most recently completed fiscal year (identify the date on which your fiscal year ends).

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S.


ini o

n D

SK

J8S

OY

B1P

RO

D w

ith N

OT

ICE

S


1 1 No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 11–5–237, expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436.

importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2010 (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) imports;

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country; and

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country.

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2010 (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty- paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping duties). If you are a trade/ business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production;

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and

(c) The quantity and value of your firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports.

(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Products that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country after 2004, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Products produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries.

(13) (Optional) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Products and Domestic Industries; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.


By order of the Commission. Issued: December 22, 2010.

Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2010–32699 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am]



[Investigation No. 731–TA–663 (Third Review)]

Paper Clips From China

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of a five-year review concerning the antidumping duty order on paper clips from China.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the

antidumping duty order on paper clips from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission; 1 to be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is February 2, 2011. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by March 18, 2011. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 2847 (January 16, 2009). DATES: Effective Date: January 3, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background.—On November 25, 1994, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) issued an antidumping duty order on imports of paper clips from China (59 FR 60606). Following five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective August 15, 2000, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on imports of paper clips from China (65 FR 49784). Following second five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective February 7, 2006, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on imports of


ini o

n D

SK

J8S

OY

B1P

RO

D w

ith N

OT

ICE

S

31631 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Notices

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s);

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include both U.S. and export commercial sales, internal consumption, and company transfers) for your most recently completed fiscal year (identify the date on which your fiscal year ends).

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country(ies), provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2010 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) imports;

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country; and

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country.

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country(ies), provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2010 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise

in each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production;

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and

(c) the quantity and value of your firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports.

(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country(ies) after 2005, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country(ies), and such merchandise from other countries.

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.


By order of the Commission.

Issued: May 25, 2011. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–13445 Filed 5–31–11; 8:45 am]



[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–457–A–D Third Review]

Heavy Forged Hand Tools From China; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews Concerning the Antidumping Duty Orders on Heavy Forged Hand Tools From China.

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

DATES: Effective Date: April 8, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cassise (202–708–5408), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background.—On April 8, 2011, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (76 FR 168, January 3, 2011) of the subject five-year reviews was adequate and that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 May 31, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM 01JNN1mst

ocks

till o

n D

SK

4VP

TV

N1P

RO

D w

ith N

OT

ICE

S

31632 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Notices

1 A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s Web site.

2 The Commission has found the responses submitted by Ames True Temper and Council Tool Co., Inc. to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.

Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on July 7, 2011, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for these reviews. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules.

Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,2 and any party other than an interested party to the reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are due on or before July 13, 2011 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the reviews by July 13, 2011. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its reviews, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce’s final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce’s results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 Fed. Reg. 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even where electronic filing of a document is permitted, certain documents must also be filed in paper form, as specified in II (C) of the Commission’s Handbook on

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 Fed. Reg. 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002).

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Determination.—The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).


By order of the Commission. Issued: May 25, 2011.

James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–13450 Filed 5–31–11; 8:45 am]



Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled In Re Certain Protective Cases and Components thereof, DN 2809; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Holbein, Acting Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov, and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000.

General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)

at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing- impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission has received a complaint filed on Otter Products LLC on May 25, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain protective cases and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents A.G. Findings and Mfg. Co., Inc. of Sunrise, FL; AFC Trident Inc. of Chino, CA; Alibaba.com Hong Kong Ltd. of Hangzhou, China; Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; Cellairis Franchise, Inc. of Alpharetta, GA; Cellet Products of Santa Fe Springs, CA; DHgate.com of Beijing, China; Griffin Technology, Inc. of Nashville, TN; Guangzhou Evotech Industry Co., Ltd., of Guangdong, China; Hardcandy Cases LLC, of Sacramento, CA; Hoffco Brands Inc. of Wheat Ridge, CO; Hong Kong Better Technology Group Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; Hong Kong HJJ Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; Hypercel Corporation of Valencia, CA; InMotion Entertainment of Jacksonville, FL; Mega Watts Computers LLC of Tulsa, OK; National Cellular of Brooklyn, NY; OEMBargain.com of Wantagh, NY; One Step Up Ltd. of New York, NY; Papaya Holdings Ltd. of Central, Hong Kong; Quanyun Electronics Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; ShenZhen Star & Way Trade Co., Ltd. of Guangzhou City, China; Sinatech Industrial Co., Ltd. of Guangzhou, China; Smilecase of Windsor Mill, MD; Suntel Global Investment Ltd. of Guangzhou, China; TheCaseInPoint.com of Titusville, FL; TheCaseSpace of Fort Collins, CO; Topter Technology Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen China and Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China

The complainant, proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five pages in length, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint. Comments should address whether issuance of an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order in this investigation would negatively affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 May 31, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM 01JNN1mst

ocks

till o

n D

SK

4VP

TV

N1P

RO

D w

ith N

OT

ICE

S

24856 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Notices

1 Ames is the successor company to Woodings- Verona Tools Works, the petitioner in the original investigation.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–803]

Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e., Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks) From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2011, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools (‘‘Hand Tools’’) (i.e., Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). Based on the notices of intent to participate and adequate responses filed by the domestic interested parties, and the lack of response from any respondent interested party, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of the orders pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, at the levels indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emeka Chukwudebe, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0219. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 3, 2011, the Department initiated the third sunset review of the orders on Hand Tools pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 76 FR 89 (January 3, 2011) (‘‘Initiation’’); see also Antidumping Duty Orders: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles From the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 6622 (February 19, 1991) (‘‘Orders’’). On January 12, 2011, the Department received notices of intent to participate from two domestic parties

within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i): (1) Ames True Temper (‘‘Ames’’)1 and (2) Council Tool Company, Inc. (‘‘Council Tool’’). These two parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), as domestic manufacturers and producers of the domestic like product. On February 2, 2011, Ames and Council Tool both filed timely and adequate substantive responses within 30 days after the date of publication of the Initiation. The Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party in the sunset review. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of the Orders.

Scope of the Orders

The products covered by these orders are Hand Tools comprising the following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) Hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds); (2) bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges; (3) picks and mattocks; and (4) axes, adzes and similar hewing tools. Hand Tools include heads for drilling hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may not be finished, or which may or may not be imported with handles; assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging bars, and tampers; and steel wood splitting wedges. Hand Tools are manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operations may include shot blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the insertion of handles for handled products. Hand Tools are currently provided for under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. Specifically excluded from these orders are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in weight and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and under. The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes;

however, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in this review are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) dated concurrently with this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the dumping margin likely to prevail if the Orders were revoked. Parties can obtain a public copy of the Decision Memorandum on file in the Central Records Unit, room 7046, of the main Commerce building.

In addition, a complete public version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

The Department determines that revocation of the Orders on Hand Tools would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the rates listed below.

PRC–wide (all manufacturers/ producers/exporters)

Margin (percent)

Axes/Adzes ............................... 15.02 Picks/Mattocks .......................... 50.81 Bars/Wedges ............................ 31.76 Hammers/Sledges .................... 45.42

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: April 26, 2011. Paul Piquado, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2011–10768 Filed 5–2–11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:39 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03MYN1.SGM 03MYN1srob

inso

n on

DS

KH

WC

L6B

1PR

OD

with

NO

TIC

ES

APPENDIX B

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

C-2

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACYin

Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-457-A-D (Third Review)

On April 8, 2011, the Commission determined that it should proceed to expedited reviews in thesubject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission determined that the domestic producer responses filed by Ames True Temperand Council Tool Co., Inc. were individually adequate. Because these two domestic producers togetheraccounted for a substantial proportion of domestic production of each of the four domestic like productsthe Commission defined in the original investigations and prior reviews, the Commission furtherdetermined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission also received a response from Fiskars Brands, Inc. (“Fiskars”), an importer ofsubject axes and adzes, but Fiskars subsequently filed a letter indicating that it no longer intended toparticipate in the reviews, and requesting that its response be withdrawn. In light of this, and havingreceived no response from any other respondent interested party, the Commission determined that therespondent interested party group response was inadequate.

Given the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response, and any othercircumstances that would warrant proceeding to full reviews, the Commission determined to conductexpedited reviews. A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretaryand the Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov).

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-2

A. AXES & ADZES

* * * * * * *

B. BARS & WEDGES

* * * * * * *

C. HAMMERS & SLEDGES

* * * * * * *

D. PICKS & MATTOCKS

* * * * * * *

heavy forged hand tools from china - usitc · in those reviews, the commission determined that...

Documents